Blood spatter? Fact or myth?

[John]

Detecting hidden blood stains in crime scenes

If you watch many of the TV “Cop” shows, you will see at some point those working a crime scene using a blue light in search of invisible blood (blood stains that were cleaned up). Shazam! Blue-white stains appear all over the floors, walls and objects sitting around the crime scene! But in reality—this cannot happen. You see, blood does not fluoresce by applying UV or visible blue light.

Blood, even minute quantities that remain after clean-up, can be made to “luminesce;” that is, by spraying certain chemicals such as Luminol, BlueStar or Fluorescene on the various surfaces, blood will luminesce, or simply “glow in the dark”—and adding blue light is not necessary. So what can alternate light sources reveal? Although blood does not fluoresce, certain other physiological fluids will. UV alternate light sources can reveal the following: seminal fluid, saliva and urine stains. Also, certain narcotics will fluoresce as will bone and teeth fragments.

Other uses of alternate light sources Indeed, many forms of physical evidence will fluoresce. But modern science has resulted in the development of chemicals that “make” objects fluoresce. When using fluorescent chemicals, latent fingerprint development can be greatly improved. Fluorescent latent print powders have the ability to make the latent residue on a surface fluoresce. The benefit here is that the ridges fluoresce brightly and when photographed, a multi-colored or confused background can be minimized to the point where it does not show up in photographs. Fluorescent liquids are used to develop latent prints on porous surfaces such as paper and cardboard.

Fluorescent dyes are used to enhance latent prints developed using superglue fuming. The use of alternate light sources provides a highly practical and efficient means of locating physical evidence at crime scenes. The invention and perfection of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) has further advanced evidence recovery since even 1 and 3 watt LEDs can be installed in small, hand-held flashlights, and their performance is remarkable.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/alternatelightsources-print.html


eta. Sorry just noticed davel posted a snippet from this already.

[John]

what do you mean by prove....prove is a word used very loosely on here...yet we have absolute proof.....beyond reasonable doubt....and on the balance of probablities...which one do you mean

The way I read it, the only thing that is proved is that the FSS failed to establish the presence of any blood on the two walls or the settee.

any advance on...no blood...no splatter and no connection to Maddie

No established connection.

[ShiningInLuz]

ou watch many of the TV “Cop” shows, you will see at some point those working a crime scene using a blue light in search of invisible blood (blood stains that were cleaned up). Shazam! Blue-white stains appear all over the floors, walls and objects sitting around the crime scene! But in reality—this cannot happen. You see, blood does not fluoresce by applying UV or visible blue light.

Blood, even minute quantities that remain after clean-up, can be made to “luminesce;” that is, by spraying certain chemicals such as Luminol, BlueStar or Fluorescene on the various surfaces, blood will luminesce, or simply “glow in the dark”—and adding blue light is not necessary. So what can alternate light sources reveal? Although blood does not fluoresce, certain other physiological fluids will. UV alternate light sources can reveal the following: seminal fluid, saliva and urine stains. Also, certain narcotics will fluoresce as will bone and teeth fragments.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/alternatelightsources-print.html

Thank you for this.

However, it raises a few issues.

If correct, the pattern in the photo is seminal fluid, saliva or urine.  Or narcotics, or bone or tooth fragment. Now the issue is, how did so much semen, saliva and urine get splattered over the walls.  The walls where both dogs alerted.

It goes from bad to worse.  The PT team, if correct, did not apply a test that would find blood.  The FSS did not test for blood.  Since a test for blood was supposedly not performed, then the only evidence we have on blood is ....

.... the dogs.

I am struggling with this one.  Why would you deploy two dogs, get an alert on human blood (Keela) and on 'cadaverine' (Eddie), and then not get two forensic teams to look for any trace of blood, or any trace of cadaver?

Were both the PT team and the FSS as short as two thick planks?  Someone might have died and they did NOT look for blood?  Seriously?

[Jean-Pierre]

Thanks for helping to clarify.

Question.  "Blood spatter from an injury produces a quite characteristic pattern."  Does it?  I would have thought that depended on the type of injury.

I'm curious because on my blog I have ruled out a gunshot injury pattern and a repeated bludgeoning injury pattern, and I'm keen to rule out any other pattern that does not fit the photo.

Random grubby marks may well be the truth, but I would like to 'prove' what the photo shows.  As best as I can.

Apologies - I cant provide the link which explains it, because access is restricted.  So here is a link to the CSI network.  It does have the merit of explaining it quite well but goes on a bit. 

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/simplified-guide-to-bloodstain-pattern-analysis.html

If you compare some of the images with the photos of the wall in this thread you will see that they are rather different.

100% proof is impossible - but you should be able to draw a reasonable and reasoned conclusion. 

PS SIL just seen your reply - as far as I recall the swabs were tested for dna linking to Madeleine and no connection found.  If that is case then it matters not what they tested for. 

PPS - John - snap - and tell my computer autocorrect!!   

[John]

Thank you for this.

However, it raises a few issues.

If correct, the pattern in the photo is seminal fluid, saliva or urine.  Or narcotics, or bone or tooth fragment. Now the issue is, how did so much semen, saliva and urine get splattered over the walls.  The walls where both dogs alerted.

It goes from bad to worse.  The PT team, if correct, did not apply a test that would find blood.  The FSS did not test for blood.  Since a test for blood was supposedly not performed, then the only evidence we have on blood is ....

.... the dogs.

I am struggling with this one.  Why would you deploy two dogs, get an alert on human blood (Keela) and on 'cadaverine' (Eddie), and then not get two forensic teams to look for any trace of blood, or any trace of cadaver?

Were both the PT team and the FSS as short as two thick planks?  Someone might have died and they did NOT look for blood?  Seriously?

I agree SiL, those two walls and the settee were central to something and especially since the lower marks were all but hidden by the settee.  Could all be perfectly innocent of course!

The question which should be being asked is why those two adjoining walls and nowhere else?

[ShiningInLuz]

No established connection.

That may well be the wobble factor at the conclusion of the thread.

How many unknowns might have been Madeleine's, and equally might well be not.

If the construct of the 282 volunteer DNA database was clarified, everyone interested in this case would get a better view.

I am assuming, given that it turned up a hit on a child occupying 5A immediately before the McCanns, that it is a 5A or Luz related database.

But 282 people.  That's a lot.  T9 plus children is 17.  How many previous occupants?  Cleaners and police staff?  Whoever traipsed through 5A that night?  I think I'm still short of at least 200 people.

[Jean-Pierre]

I agree SiL, those two walls and the settee were central to something and especially since the lower marks were all but hidden by the settee.  Could all be perfectly innocent of course!

The question which should be being asked is why those two adjoining walls and nowhere else?

Where was the sofa usually? 

Who cleaned the apartment?

[Brietta]

If you look at the dog videos, there was a settee in there backed up to the window, that had to be removed to let Eddie and Keela onto the tiles for a good sniff.

I think it might be in Amaral's book that Gerry allegedly stated that he pushed the sofa up against the wall because the kids were throwing cards behind it.

As to why just this wall, good question.  Even if it was re the dog alerts, I think I would have had a look elsewhere in 5A, as a reference. 

Perhaps it was thought the dogs were infallible.

I think you have it in one when you say, "Perhaps it was thought the dogs were infallible."

According to Ricardo Paiva, the PJ were "suspicious of the McCanns from the start of the investigation." 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6977977/Madeleine-McCann-mothers-dream-was-turning-point-in-investigation-court-hears.html

He alleged that Kate had a dream in which she inferred Madeleine's death.  Which in conjunction with the investigation believing that the dogs later found blood in the McCann apartment, was considered sufficient to have them constituted arguidos.

The pressure was then on.
In the absence of any corroborating evidence as attested by the FSS results, a 'confession' was required.  It should be noted that the PJ had the forensic results when the McCanns were made arguidos.

Therefore they either

• misunderstood the content of the communication from the FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE
• understood the forensic report perfectly well but chose to disregard it having already, as attested by Ricardo Paiva and the author of the interim report,Tavares de Almeida, been convinced of parental involvement
• the end result being the McCann TRIAL BY MEDIA largely fuelled by forum myths such as 'bloody footprint in Kate's shoe size' and 'blood splattered walls'

The fact that nine years down the line we are still discussing them is testament to the power of propaganda.

[ShiningInLuz]

I agree SiL, those two walls and the settee were central to something and especially since the lower marks were all but hidden by the settee.  Could all be perfectly innocent of course!

The question which should be being asked is why those two adjoining walls and nowhere else?

I don't know what was 'correct procedure' in PT in 2007.  There was no CSI manual.

But UV lights are cheap as chips.  And as you have pointed out before, 5A was small.  Personally, I would have flashed my UV light everywhere, just to cover my a**e.  It's difficult to explain before the dogs alerted.  It's even more problematic to explain after the dogs alerted.

[Carana]

Isn't it a case of "dog goes woof" behind the sofa humans go into "hunt the cadaver remains" mode?

No doubt. I don't actually have a problem with examining the area of the dog alerts. What I do have a problem with is that myths are being perpetuated even nine years laters as to the implications, when the actual results drew a blank.

What's the point?

[Carana]

Detecting hidden blood stains in crime scenes

If you watch many of the TV “Cop” shows, you will see at some point those working a crime scene using a blue light in search of invisible blood (blood stains that were cleaned up). Shazam! Blue-white stains appear all over the floors, walls and objects sitting around the crime scene! But in reality—this cannot happen. You see, blood does not fluoresce by applying UV or visible blue light.

Blood, even minute quantities that remain after clean-up, can be made to “luminesce;” that is, by spraying certain chemicals such as Luminol, BlueStar or Fluorescene on the various surfaces, blood will luminesce, or simply “glow in the dark”—and adding blue light is not necessary. So what can alternate light sources reveal? Although blood does not fluoresce, certain other physiological fluids will. UV alternate light sources can reveal the following: seminal fluid, saliva and urine stains. Also, certain narcotics will fluoresce as will bone and teeth fragments.

Other uses of alternate light sources Indeed, many forms of physical evidence will fluoresce. But modern science has resulted in the development of chemicals that “make” objects fluoresce. When using fluorescent chemicals, latent fingerprint development can be greatly improved. Fluorescent latent print powders have the ability to make the latent residue on a surface fluoresce. The benefit here is that the ridges fluoresce brightly and when photographed, a multi-colored or confused background can be minimized to the point where it does not show up in photographs. Fluorescent liquids are used to develop latent prints on porous surfaces such as paper and cardboard.

Fluorescent dyes are used to enhance latent prints developed using superglue fuming. The use of alternate light sources provides a highly practical and efficient means of locating physical evidence at crime scenes. The invention and perfection of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) has further advanced evidence recovery since even 1 and 3 watt LEDs can be installed in small, hand-held flashlights, and their performance is remarkable.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/alternatelightsources-print.html


eta. Sorry just noticed davel posted a snippet from this already.

There is nothing in the files to indicate that chemical products had been used on that wall.

[xtina]

No doubt. I don't actually have a problem with examining the area of the dog alerts. What I do have a problem with is that myths are being perpetuated even nine years laters as to the implications, when the actual results drew a blank.

What's the point?

whats the point .....................

well seems to me not a myth ..

just missed opportunity ...........

thats the point.....

[John]

There is nothing in the files to indicate that chemical products had been used on that wall.

It is interesting that we had that situation in Cipriano.  Chemicals being used to clean a crimescene, human blood spatter on a wall and a mother who confessed to having accidentally killed her daughter by hitting her head off that same wall?

[Alfie]

whats the point .....................

well seems to me not a myth ..

just missed opportunity ...........

thats the point.....

On what basis do you state that blood spatter is "not a myth"?

[xtina]

On what basis do you state that blood spatter is "not a myth"?

could be because the correct chemicals were not used ..............it could have been there ...